[...]
>> > -destroy_port:
>> > - port->count -= 1;
>> > - if (!port->count)
>> > - macvlan_port_destroy(lowerdev);
>> I think you still need this when it fails netdev_upper_dev_link(). The
>> only thing you should remove is the label.
>
> I don't think so. I think the doub
From: Francesco Ruggeri
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 15:03:32 -0700
> If macvlan_common_newlink fails in register_netdevice after macvlan_init
> then it decrements port->count twice, first in macvlan_uninit (from
> register_netdevice or rollback_registered) and then again in
> macvlan_common_newlink.
>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Mahesh Bandewar wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Francesco Ruggeri
> wrote:
> > If macvlan_common_newlink fails in register_netdevice after macvlan_init
> > then it decrements port->count twice, first in macvlan_uninit (from
> > register_netdevice or
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Francesco Ruggeri wrote:
> If macvlan_common_newlink fails in register_netdevice after macvlan_init
> then it decrements port->count twice, first in macvlan_uninit (from
> register_netdevice or rollback_registered) and then again in
> macvlan_common_newlink.
> A si
Francesco Ruggeri writes:
> If macvlan_common_newlink fails in register_netdevice after macvlan_init
> then it decrements port->count twice, first in macvlan_uninit (from
> register_netdevice or rollback_registered) and then again in
> macvlan_common_newlink.
> A similar problem may exist in the
If macvlan_common_newlink fails in register_netdevice after macvlan_init
then it decrements port->count twice, first in macvlan_uninit (from
register_netdevice or rollback_registered) and then again in
macvlan_common_newlink.
A similar problem may exist in the ipvlan driver.
This patch consolidates
